Hon members, I think that for any shared services to work - we have seen that in the provision of RDP houses in a number of communities - or when that kind of service is to be provided to any community, it is best when the community is involved from the planning phase and is also organised accordingly. Then it is possible for residents in a street comprising a number of households to know that they can, together, build a home - or a toilet, if it is a toilet that has to be built - for each household.
If it is not done with their involvement and in that fashion, it is bound to result in problems and a sense of not being provided with the requisite service or support. It only works when it is done in the spirit of letsema or "let us do it together". That way it works better because those who are on the waiting list then know that they are on such a list, and they also know the product and its quality because they are involved in its construction and delivery, as it were.
I think that the case you are referring to suffered from that weakness because the community, as I followed the story, were made to sign some documents which purportedly recorded their acceptance of the toilet seats that were not covered. We believe that had the community been engaged and involved in the provision of those structures, they would have done it sequentially. We also believe that at the end - whatever time it would have taken - all of them would have ended up with covered toilets. Thank you.